Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Rubio Eligible?
Fred Thmpson America ^ | 07.31.12 | Sen Fred Thompson

Posted on 07/31/2012 2:58:34 PM PDT by Perdogg

I would like to address an issue that is apparently of concern to a significant number of people. In my “Ask Fred” column, several people have expressed concern (some have been adamant and angry) that Marco Rubio should not be selected as the Vice Presidential nominee because he would not be eligible to be President, if the need arose. They contend that at least one of his parents were required at the time of his birth to have been a citizen for him to fulfill the constitutional requirement of eligibility, even though he was born on American soil.

(Excerpt) Read more at fredthompsonsamerica.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: 2012veep; establishmentpick; globalist; ineligible; naturalborncitizen; no; nope; noway; rino; rubio; unman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-321 next last
To: vmivol00

You list no experts at all, yet you attack my experts?

You are alone. Nobody agrees with you, nobody of any import.

It is YOUR job to convince legal authority and Conservative leadership that you are correct.

You have failed to do so.


151 posted on 07/31/2012 8:21:26 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Hetuck; butterdezillion; MHGinTN
Let me get this straight:

I am accused of using a “argument from authority” -— even though it is, to any normal person, ridiculous to make legal arguments that nobody will listen to but your fringe birther types.

However, “Jesus” is used to, somehow, prove me wrong?

Can you think of a higher authority?

I am guessing that Jesus is a bit irritated in His name being used in such careless fashion.

In fact, I think there is a Commandment against such misuse.

You Birthers need to give it up.

You have no legal basis for your claims.

152 posted on 07/31/2012 8:26:31 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
According to Lawrence Sellin, one of the R presidential candidates said that the eligibility issue is not being touched because it goes far deeper than anybody knows. IOW, they know there are deep, deep problems. They are afraid of stirring that pot because they know it is not a superficial little scratch; it is a gaping, bleeding, gangrenous, festering pile of pus and dead flesh. They’re afraid of how big this issue is.

I believe that, at this point, every single member of the Supreme Court would interpret the term "natural born citizen" so as to make Obama qualified. I think it would be too humiliating for them to say that they just sat there for nearly four years watching an illegal presidency without doing or saying anything about it. They will not do that.

"I guess I shouldn't have administered the oath of office," explained Chief Justice Roberts the day after ruling that Obama's whole presidency was illegal. "We'll just have to void all that was done during the last four years. Tomorrow we'll be ordering the Treasury to retroactively reverse last year's extension of the tax cuts. We're asking for everyone's patience, understanding and cooperation in the collection of the overdue taxes and penalties. The day after tomorrow we'll get to work on invalidating the military decisions. I guess we owe the bin Laden family an apology. You just have no idea how busy we're gong to be straightening all this out. Once again, our apologies for not acting sooner, but we had so many other cases."

153 posted on 07/31/2012 8:27:37 PM PDT by Tau Food (Tom Hoefling for President - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

The dead bodies that have resulted from this coverup; the forgery and fraud; the perjury; the threats to the media, to the Clintons, etc; the imprisonment of Lt Col Terry Lakin; the wasted taxpayer money spent on hiding records; the hiding of some records, destruction of others, and falsification of others; the libel; the courts’ claims that these crimes are nobody’s business..... those things all matter.

To me, this has never really been about Obama, but about a system that has utterly failed in every way and crapped on everything I hold dear. Like truth, life, justice, and the rule of law.

The establishment has no idea why any of that matters to us peons.


154 posted on 07/31/2012 8:27:52 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

I’m not going to waste my time explaining it again. Anybody who is capable of following my illustration has already done so. That’s apparently not you, so we’ll just let that one zoom over your head.


155 posted on 07/31/2012 8:33:39 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Hetuck; butterdezillion
Don't encourage the obamanroids to continue with their insults and ridicule. They've exposed themselves sufficiently during the Non Sequitur posting games. The obvious is not even on their acknowledgments, since the Founders who authored the Constitution went to the trouble of specifying more than mere citizenship and even corrected themselves later when they realized they had written immogration law in such a away as to conflict witht heir own specificity so they promptly changed the immigration law the next year! The roids must ridicule when the obvious exposes their purposed deceits. They have nothing else but wore stink piles of words and not so subtle insults.
156 posted on 07/31/2012 8:33:46 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

I agree. The courts are worthless at this point. At this point it’s the state and local government officials who can step up and play for keeps, and/or the voters. Not just on this issue but on ALL the lawlessness.


157 posted on 07/31/2012 8:36:03 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Point taken. I keep thinking that people don’t understand because it hasn’t been explained quite right, but some either can’t or won’t understand no matter what they’re shown.


158 posted on 07/31/2012 8:40:09 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Rubio is neither eligible, nor, conservative.

It would be a disaster to pick him as Romney’s running mate. The Dems will bring up his eligibility, guaranteed

Too bad we have wimps in the “conservative” media who still attack those who bring up Obama Eligibility. However, you can be sure the Dems will go on the offensive with Eligibility if Rubio is the nominee


159 posted on 07/31/2012 8:42:33 PM PDT by SeminoleCounty (Remember when RINOs were something you hunted in Africa?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

I listed historical context with Hamilton and Jay.

You cite “people of importance”. Ha ha.

I am alone...ha ha...except for everyone else on this thread you disagrees with you....wait they are “nobody of any import”. Ha ha ha

So what was Jay referring to when he rejected Hamilton’s language? Was he someone of “import”?

Where does Rep Hank Johnson rank on your list of “import”? He is after all an “elected official”. Ha ha ha

It’s not my job to convince anyone of anything. If you choose to make up the law as it suits your political agenda...go ahead. Interpreting the rules to fit your or Rubio’s agenda certainly puts you in with the class of folks defined as “import”. Ha ha. Those folks routinely like to operate under a different set of rules than those of us of low “import”. Ha ha


160 posted on 07/31/2012 8:46:46 PM PDT by vmivol00 (I won't be reconstructed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Since some ignorantly and falsely hold that birth in a US Territory or on a US Military base, by itself, would not qualify for automatic citizenship -— It was necessary to stop that argument by bringing up the fact that McCain qualified due to the valid citizenship claims of both of his parents, at the time of John McCains birth.


Wrong and Wrong.

First, being born on a US military installation overseas did not give one citizenship or natural born status...prior to 1965. I know this for a fact, for I was born on US military installation overseas before 1965....and I have Naturalization papers...and both parents were US citizens at the time. After 1965, the “Naturalization” certificate was no longer needed...however, such births still do not connotate “natural born” births

Second....John McCain is actually “ineligible”. The Senate passed a RESOLUTION, not a BILL, that the Senate recognized that McCain was eligible to run for President. A RESOLUTION is not a BILL...so its is not law...McCain was not and never was eligible. He was actually was born in a civilian hospital in Panama, not in the Canal Zone (which at the time was US territory). The McCain “Inaccurate Conception” could be the reason why the GOP and “conservative” media has been supporting Obama all along on the Eligibility Issue.

I see too many “False Canards” pushed by the Obama Supporters to try and attack those who bring up Obama Eligibility. Obama is not eligible to be President...neither is Rubio, Jindal...or even McCain...or even me ;)


161 posted on 07/31/2012 8:55:46 PM PDT by SeminoleCounty (Remember when RINOs were something you hunted in Africa?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Since some ignorantly and falsely hold that birth in a US Territory or on a US Military base, by itself, would not qualify for automatic citizenship -— It was necessary to stop that argument by bringing up the fact that McCain qualified due to the valid citizenship claims of both of his parents, at the time of John McCains birth.


Wrong and Wrong.

First, being born on a US military installation overseas did not give one citizenship or natural born status...prior to 1965. I know this for a fact, for I was born on US military installation overseas before 1965....and I have Naturalization papers...and both parents were US citizens at the time. After 1965, the “Naturalization” certificate was no longer needed...however, such births still do not connotate “natural born” births

Second....John McCain is actually “ineligible”. The Senate passed a RESOLUTION, not a BILL, that the Senate recognized that McCain was eligible to run for President. A RESOLUTION is not a BILL...so its is not law...McCain was not and never was eligible. He was actually was born in a civilian hospital in Panama, not in the Canal Zone (which at the time was US territory). The McCain “Inaccurate Conception” could be the reason why the GOP and “conservative” media has been supporting Obama all along on the Eligibility Issue.

I see too many “False Canards” pushed by the Obama Supporters to try and attack those who bring up Obama Eligibility. Obama is not eligible to be President...neither is Rubio, Jindal...or even McCain...or even me ;)


162 posted on 07/31/2012 8:56:01 PM PDT by SeminoleCounty (Remember when RINOs were something you hunted in Africa?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

According to Vattel’s vision of natural law McCain would be eligible.

Additionaly McCain was never naturalized under US law.


163 posted on 07/31/2012 9:43:45 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: vmivol00; Kansas58
"You jump on every thread that mentions Rubio to call anyone who raises the issue a crackpot. Clearly you have an agenda here."

Help yourself.

164 posted on 08/01/2012 2:10:59 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If America were a car, the "Check President" light would be on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
"Being in much the same situation as Rubio I can relate to his but I can accept my status as ineligible even though a vet of WWII."

Thank you for your service. I'm eligible, but my child, having been born of myself and my non-naturalized alien spouse is not, so I can empathize with you to a certain degree, and also accept the situation.

There are over 300 million citizens to choose from. Surely finding a suitable and eligible candidate for the Executive from such a pool can't be too hard.

165 posted on 08/01/2012 2:22:10 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If America were a car, the "Check President" light would be on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Okieshooter; Spaulding; bushpilot1; Red Steel; BP2; El Gato; patlin; Perdogg; rxsid
No where in the language of the 14th do you see the term natural born Citizen. That is because the term was commonly known and understood.

The following was taken from here

John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

 

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.


 
Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

The take away from this is that, while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people's house regarding "citizenship" and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect's multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution. The United States House was in complete agreement at the time. NBC = born in sovereign U.S. territory, to 2 citizen parentS who owe allegiance to no other country.

SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)

It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "natural born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.

The point is that up until relatively recently, the SCOTUS, the Congress, Presidents and the country were well acquainted with the law of nations and Vattel's edition in particular. It is also that, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "natural born Citizen" (of the U.S.) has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country and who often then pass that foreign citizenship & allegiance owed on to their child - by birthright).
 
This compilation has been added to and improved with the help, hard work and comments of many FReepers (including, but not limited to: Spaulding, bushpilot1, Red Steel, BP2, El Gato, patlin) and many of the "eligibility" lawyers and/or their clients and law students (including, but not limited to: Leo Donfrio, Mario Apuzzo and the folks at UR).

To belittle or ignore the significance of Vattel's legal treatise, "Law of Nations" is to ignore the clear historical record that his work on natural law was very influential to our Independence and, latter, to our founding.

Last Update: 05/09/2011.

bredband
tele2 mobilt bredband

166 posted on 08/01/2012 3:39:43 AM PDT by GregNH (If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Okieshooter
The bottom line is that to be a natural born citizen means that it is not necessary to be naturalized to become a citizen. Anyone born on American soil with the exception of those whose parents are here as an official representing a another nation is a NBC. Rubio and Jindle are both NBC.

This is a common fallacy. Being born in a barn will not make you a horse. Likewise, being born in the United States does not make you an American. This mistaken notion has been repeated endlessly since the 14th amendment because simple minded people cannot understand the distinction between "Citizen" and "Natural Citizen."

The difference is whether another nation has a legitimate claim on your loyalty. A "natural citizen" is someone who cannot be regarded as a citizen of any other country under any application of international law. The principle of law known as Jus Sanguinus is recognized among many countries, and is indeed the sole basis for citizenship in those countries.

Here in the United States, we have had an endless parade of exceptions to the "born here makes you a citizen" theory. First of all, Indians who were born here were not citizens. Slaves who were born here were also not citizens. Colonists who were born here, yet chose to remain loyal to the British Crown during the Revolutionary war (Called Loyalists) were also not American citizens. Women who were born here but married foreign citizens were also not citizens. (Till the Cable act of 1924) And lastly, any child born here from the staff of a foreign embassy was NOT an American citizen.

That is 5 (five) exceptions to the theory that being born here makes you a "natural citizen." I would point out that it took an act of Congress to change the citizenship status of Indians, Slaves, and Women. How could the status of "natural citizen" be dependent upon a subsequent legislative act of congress? If it requires a special law to make it occur, how is it "natural"? Obviously in 1787 they didn't have such a law, so those who are citizens only on the basis of a subsequent law cannot be those "natural citizens" of which the U.S. Constitution speaks. They could not have existed prior to the law which makes their citizenship possible.

One last thing. James Madison (The father of the U.S. Constitution) wrote under the pen name Publius. Here is an excerpt from a letter he sent to two Virginia newspapers in 1811. In this letter he full out says that being born here may make you a citizen of a state, but it WILL NOT make you a citizen of the United States.

Here is a link to the ENTIRE page of that Newspaper where you can see the entire letter. (Scroll down to page two.)

167 posted on 08/01/2012 6:06:10 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DallasSun
No need to apologize. I completely understand why you had that reaction. The birthers cause my hair to hurt. And..you are more than welcome.

Possibly the result of attempting to wrap a tiny mind around a simple concept. Loyalty is imparted by Loyal parents, not lines on a map.

168 posted on 08/01/2012 6:08:05 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: norton
Good way to resolve that would be to present the specific case to SCOTUS ... IIRC it's never been specifically addressed before.

I do not think it is a good idea to put this issue before the Supreme Court at the present time. They are currently defective. Just as the National Rifle Association refrained from bringing any Second Amendment cases before the Supreme court for fear of idiot liberals permanently damaging the protection guaranteed by the Second Amendment, We should also wait until we can insure we've gotten rid of the idiots on the court. The fiction that being born here makes you a "natural citizen" is so widespread that most people simply accept it as a fact. This ignorance is not confined to laymen, it is also prevalent amongst supposedly educated jurists. Until the public and the Judiciary have been educated to the correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen" we should not be asking them to make any decisions on this issue because we will obtain a decision which is tailor made by their ignorance.

The best way to proceed is to compile our evidence and our arguments and slowly put them before the public. Get enough of the public informed, and eventually the legal system will follow. There is no other way to accomplish this task.

169 posted on 08/01/2012 6:16:33 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Okieshooter
Congressional Research Service

You are off on the wrong foot here. It is not possible for Congress to modify or re-define ANY constitutional term by a subsequent action of Congress. To put it another way, Congress CANNOT change the meaning of words or terms written in the U.S. Constitution. It is beyond their power to make changes to our governing document.

The only thing they can do is initiate an Amendment process, and even that cannot be completed without the consent of 3/4ths of the state legislatures. To my knowledge, Article II has not been repealed by any subsequent Amendment, and therefore is still in force with the same meaning it possessed in 1787.

The constitution expressly says that the Congress only has the power to "naturalize." (Which means to make "like natural.") Congress cannot Make something natural. It must either BE natural, or it is not. Any citizenship status which REQUIRES an act by Congress is an artificial status. It is a created condition, not a natural one.

Hope that clears things up for you a bit.

170 posted on 08/01/2012 6:24:17 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Okieshooter
It matters not what you think what his loyalties might be, the fact is that Rubio is a NBC,

I think Rubio is a loyal American, and I think he Might be a "natural born citizen." It is my understanding that his mother had already become a citizen prior to his birth, and that his father had already gone before a Judge and indicated his intention to become an American prior to his son's birth.

Given the way the matter was handled during the founding era, I think this might be sufficient to overlook the fact that his father had not completed the process prior to his son's birth, but it is not something of which I am certain.

I personally am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is certainly more of a citizen than this current moron in the White House.

171 posted on 08/01/2012 6:30:52 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I never said that Congress modified the meaning of a natural born citizen. The Congesional Research Service doe not make law, they do research. Their research indicates that the 14 th Amendment and cases before the Supreme Court indicate that the definition of NBC is born in the US. That is their opinion and the opinion of many others including Mark Levin. Your opinion may differ and that is your right. I disagree with you and that is my right. The only way to settle it would be a case to go to the Supreme Court and we all know even they can be wrong and would also surely be split in their opinions as are we.


172 posted on 08/01/2012 6:59:57 AM PDT by Okieshooter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

If you want to change the rules, the process is called “ratifiying a Constitutional Amendment.”

Anwar al-Awlaki was born in 1971 to Yemeni citizens in Las Cruces, New Mexico. US Intelligence reports that, from the age of seven, al-Awlaki was raised abroad, becoming an enemy of America, indoctrinated by the highest powers of Al-Qaida and studying under the same teachers as Osama bin Laden. He eventually influenced various terrorists such as the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, and helped plan the thwarted attack of the “Underwear Bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Al-Awlaki’s phone number was found among the contact information of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the man known as “the 20th hijacker” in the 9/11 attacks.

Those who suggest that there is no distinction between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” would have us believe and accept that such a person might have been eligible to run for President of the US simply because he was born in America. According to defenders of the alleged eligibility of Barack Obama (or Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal), any person born on US soil to one or more alien citizens could be the leader of the free world. At some point, according to that path of logic, this should have included Anwar al-Awlaki.

So, to say that every child born in America is a natural born citizen is also to say that any foreign interest whose child was born in the US could be allowed to raise that child abroad as an enemy of the US and return that child to this country in time to meet the Constitution’s 14-year residency requirement for President.

Considering that Islam has been at war with itself and the rest of the world at least since the death of Muhammad almost 1400 years ago, it takes very little imagination to project how a powerful enemy of the US might take the necessary 35 years and other resources to groom a “Manchurian Candidate” for the US Presidency. If we accept the premise that every person born in the US is a natural born citizen, we allow the establishment of a flawed precedent permitting a family such as that of Anwar al-Awlaki (or a communist government, or a Mexican drug cartel, etc.) to gain control of our country through an orchestrated, long-term attack on the Presidency.

This is precisely what the Framers were trying to prevent with the natural born citizen requirement. A note from John Jay to George Washington explains to us why the Framer’s included the natural born citizen requirement for POTUS. It was not, as some would have us believe, to discriminate against any particular race or to keep white men in power. Jay stated outright that the goal was “to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.” This is not a proscription against any ethnic heritage. It was the Framer’s best effort, within the framework of a free society, to restrict the trust of our highest office only to persons with the greatest likelihood of being reared with an abiding love of American values.

The Constitution itself argues against the assertion that every child born in America is also a natural born citizen. Constitutional eligibility requirements for members of the House and Senate include that they be “citizens,” with progressively tighter restrictions on length of residency for Senators and the President. Following that same pattern of progressively increased restrictions, the Constitution also requires that the President must be, not just a citizen, but a “natural born Citizen.”

The natural born citizen requirement is not an incidental flourish of language, but a national security provision of the supreme law of our land. It is not a “big tent” invitation but an intentionally restrictive, but not racist, prohibition. It serves as a foundation on which to permanently secure and preserve the rights and freedoms which are the heritage of all Americans. Its purpose is to ensure, to the greatest possible extent, that every American President has sole allegiance to the USA by virtue of a childhood steeped in the richness of American culture, anchored in a respect for freedom, emboldened by the spirit of independence and innovation, and committed to the continuation of the noble experiment of a republic created and protected by free men and women and their progeny.

http://www.art2superpac.com/blog/?viewDetailed=00011


173 posted on 08/01/2012 8:46:53 AM PDT by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter
Listen carefully, read carefully:

There is a difference between Naturalized Citizens and Natural Born or Birthright Citizens!

You do not know what you are talking about.

Besides, you do not know how to argue or debate. You tell us what you want or what you fear, and then you say we must have a law to prevent what you do not want.

That does not prove anything, it certainly does not prove that the law you want already exists.

174 posted on 08/01/2012 8:55:41 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

Wrong
Go to the State Department website and look.


175 posted on 08/01/2012 9:05:43 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: DallasSun
"I work with the Republican Party in Texas. I do not know one Republican...even amongst the big dawgs here..who thinks President Obama is not eligible to be President. And they really, really want this argument to go away before it gets any closer to the election."

Then the TX GOP big dawgs are not paying attention and had better read the tea leaves in the Ted Cruz/Tea Party victory last night.

If they want this to go away, they'd better get their big dawg asses in gear and see this thing resolved with a proper Congressional investigation instead of trying to bury it in the back yard and forget about it.

SURVEYS PERSISTENTLY SHOW 44% OF ALL VOTERS AND 66% OF RANK & FILE REPUBLICANS DOUBT OR REFUTE OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY. THIS ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA. IT'S ABOUT THE US CONSTITUTION AND IT IS NOT "GOING AWAY."

http://www.art2superpac.com/index.html

176 posted on 08/01/2012 9:19:43 AM PDT by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“Yeah, I think one of the Founding Fathers wrote that they should have spent more time on the judicial branch. That’s one of the very weak parts of the system of accountability.”

I’d almost call it a fraud or deceit upon the American people it is so ridiculous. But until the “civil war” these same federal employees were not regarded as having the final word on the Federal Constitution. Instead the people & their States had that final word.

But your right they screwed up big time. The very idea that 5 Federal employees can dictate the Federal Constitution is the idea of an Oligarchy not a Constitutional republic.


177 posted on 08/01/2012 9:38:31 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The only rights besides, life, liberty, and the presuit of happiness that the Declaration of Independence declares or demonstrats “unalienable” is the right of revolution/secession.

While arms seem an obvious prerequisite to defend theses rights against tyrants disinclined to respect any rights are nether listed nor demonstrated perhaps merely because they were not in contest.


178 posted on 08/01/2012 9:44:19 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

“you say we must have a law to prevent what you do not want.”

Please pay closer attention. I say we ALREADY have a law to prevent foreign influence on the Presidency. You refute that with ... nothing.


179 posted on 08/01/2012 9:47:46 AM PDT by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Common Sense 101

Natural-born citizen: Both parents were citizens (NBC or naturalized, and you were born on American soil.


180 posted on 08/01/2012 10:09:40 AM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can still go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter; DallasSun; Perdogg; DiogenesLamp; GregNH; little jermiah; Flotsam_Jetsome; MHGinTN; ...
SURVEYS PERSISTENTLY SHOW 44% OF ALL VOTERS AND 66% OF RANK & FILE REPUBLICANS DOUBT OR REFUTE OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY. THIS ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA. IT'S ABOUT THE US CONSTITUTION AND IT IS NOT "GOING AWAY."

Yup. The RINOS, Libs, Dems have totally failed to BS this away as in Epic Failure. A very recent poll June 30 - July 2, 2012. The graphics below are from this poll.

Published July 11th - http://today.yougov.com/news/2012/07/11/birthers-are-still-back/


140.85 Million Don't  Believe Obama born in This translate to about 140.85 Million US Citizens who don't believe these liars.


And for what Republicans and Conservatives believe.


Photobucket


That's 69% Rs who are not sure or who don't believe Obama or his DUmmy supporters.

Total Epic Failure. LoL.

181 posted on 08/01/2012 10:13:25 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter
““you say we must have a law to prevent what you do not want.”

Please pay closer attention. I say we ALREADY have a law to prevent foreign influence on the Presidency. You refute that with ... nothing.”


The fact that absolutely no one of any importance or legal power agrees with you is a bit more than “nothing” don't you think? Natural Born Citizen means "Citizen at the moment of Birth" A Naturalized Citizen can not be President. This is what the law says, today, this is what the law has always said. However? Congress can change the rules for "Birthright Citizenship" and has done so, several times. These changes can not be done retroactively, so those who were not born as Citizens can not be President.
182 posted on 08/01/2012 10:23:51 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Blackyce
I don’t guess it would matter to you at all that the supreme court disagrees with you on law and history:

“[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States…the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words….in this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution…The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

History disagrees with you more. The very act of rebelling against the crown and declaring an independent nation is contrary to English Common law. The principles which founded this nation are complete rejections and rebukes of English common law. It requires a special kind of fool to believe that on the issue most central to our freedom, that we should attach it back to the writ of servitude which is the English Common law.

No, the founders broke decisively with English Subjectude law. Our very existence as a nation is testament to the fact that we don't recognize it as governing our Citizens.

We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire. --George Mason-- At the Virginia U.S. Constitution Ratifying Assembly.

And another example:

The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committee of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. --James Madison Letter to George Washington.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898)

And Wong Kim Ark is a decision constantly cited by idiots. Firstly, it wasn't addressing the qualifications for the Presidency as outlined in article II, Secondly it never uses the term "Natural born citizen", And Thirdly it was applied to those people who's parents had set up a permanent domicile within this nation. It was never meant to apply to transients such as "anchor babies." Fourthly, it is entirely contradicted by the debates in the congress during the voting on and ratification of the 14th amendment, which is the only thing which grants it any legitimacy at all.

As I said, Wong Kim Ark is the favored decision of Ignorant idiots. Look up Minor v Happersett. It expressly states that a "natural citizen" is the child of two citizen parents. It specifically and explicitly rejects 14th amendment claims for "natural born citizen" status.

183 posted on 08/01/2012 10:32:18 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca
The parents do not need to be citizens; they merely need to have consented to be under the laws of the the USA — that is, legal residents.

That is not true. That is a fiction that has come about since 1898 on the basis of a faulty understanding of the court's ruling in Wong Kim Ark. The history demonstrates that prior to the late 19th century, Slaves, Indians, British Loyalists after the war, Women married to foreigners, and the children of Foreign Diplomats have always been considered non-citizens even though they were born here. If birth here was the sole criteria, none of these people would have ever been excluded from citizenship.

Not even the English use the "born on the soil" standard for their Chief Executive. No, a King (or Queen) only has legitimacy if they are descended from a member of the Royal Family. The ONLY test for legitimacy in the English Executive is jus sanguinus. Being born in England is simply not good enough.

184 posted on 08/01/2012 10:39:38 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DallasSun
I work with the Republican Party in Texas. I do not know one Republican...even amongst the big dawgs here..who thinks President Obama is not eligible to be President. And they really, really want this argument to go away before it gets any closer to the election. They find it an embarrassment. And makes us look like nuts and kooks.

And there is the essence of the opposition to our side. They do not have the knowledge base to understand what is the truth, AND they are opposed to questioning his legitimacy because they are afraid it will be politically embarrassing.

I am sorry that so many of the Republicans which you know are so badly informed on this topic. It is a common problem across the nation where the ignorant people keep a circle jerk going to celebrates the fact that they ARE ignorant about this topic.

Even some of our top intellectual talent displays ignorance on this subject, but they make arguments which support the notion that birth on the soil is not sufficient to transfer citizenship. Both George Will and Ann Coulter have written "birther" articles, without even realizing that they were justifying the "birther" position.

How funny is that?

Here's George Will's "birther" argument that he doesn't realize is a "birther" argument. Read it closely. He doesn't realize that his facts and logic would also apply to Obama.

Here is Ann Coulter's foray into "birtherism" without realizing it. Again, if she realized that she was making a "birther" argument, she would probably faint.

I would advise you to keep an open mind and carefully weigh the facts and reasoning from the other side before you decide there is nothing to our arguments. I firmly believe I can convince any reasonable person that the currently fashionable understanding of what "natural born citizen" means is wrong. The only difficulty is finding reasonable people to which to present the evidence.

Just for kicks and grins, I will show you this letter purportedly written by James Madison (Who as the Father of our Constitution ought to know what he is talking about) under his pen name "Publius" to at least two Virginia Newspapers regarding a man in Europe claiming American citizenship. Madison disagrees.


185 posted on 08/01/2012 10:55:55 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You again. God what a ****** idiot you are. Fred Thompson is simply wrong on this. He is just repeating the conventional wisdom (which is also wrong) just like everybody else. People have been taught this wrong crap for so long that it is now ubiquitous.

But the truth it is not. There is just too much evidence out there that demonstrates "birth on the soil" was not the standard by which the founders granted "natural citizen" status.

186 posted on 08/01/2012 11:00:29 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
“just like everybody else.”

“just like everybody else.”

just like everybody else.

just like everybody else.

just like everybody else.

-— But the 1,000 or so radical birthers in this country are right, somehow?

187 posted on 08/01/2012 11:04:00 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; DiogenesLamp
But the 1,000 or so radical birthers in this country are right, somehow?

Radical? LoL. Make that well over 100 million people who don't believe you Afterbirthers.

188 posted on 08/01/2012 11:07:10 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
You claim too much credit.

I, like many Americans, doubt most of what Obama says.

However? Even among the Ted Trump types who think that Obama is less than honest about his past, there is very little support for the FALSE idea that there are more than 2 types of Citizenship in the United States.

189 posted on 08/01/2012 11:10:46 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Your problem is with logic.

Nowhere do your citations say who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.


190 posted on 08/01/2012 11:15:19 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
And this is one reason among many why I consider you an idiot.

Why don't these people agree with you?

Rush Limbaugh? NO Hannity? NO Levin? NO Fred Thompson? NO Beck? NO Any member of Congress? NO Any sitting Judge? NO Landmark Legal Foundation? NO American Center for Law and Justice? NO Jay Sekulow? NO Newt Gingrich? NO Rick Santorum? NO Herman Cain? NO Americans for Prosperity? NO The NRA? NO National Right to Life Committee? NO

None of the groups or individuals, above, agree with your crackpot interpretations of the law.

Intelligent, educated people would not be proud of the fact that they are arguing a fallacy.

You are apparently so ignorant that you don't even realize it. My recollection of you is that you don't have any arguments that are NOT logical fallacies. Your other favorite argument is THIS FALLACY.

You really should wait till you grow up and learn stuff before you start opining in your ignorance. I perceive you have nothing worthwhile to espouse.

191 posted on 08/01/2012 11:16:08 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mortrey

Senate resolutions carry as much legal weight as a Hallmark Card.


192 posted on 08/01/2012 11:16:49 AM PDT by NOVACPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo; Kansas58
To: Kansas58

Please don’t resort to the leftist tactic of calling anyone who doesn’t agree worn you a crackpot. It’s a vile way to argue.

This person knows no other way. It is ignorant, but loud anyway.

193 posted on 08/01/2012 11:18:37 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You claim too much credit.

No stretch - see post 181.

However? Even among the Ted Trump types who think that Obama is less than honest about his past, there is very little support for the FALSE idea that there are more than 2 types of Citizenship in the United States.

He's either ignorant of the facts, or it is just toooo complicated and "abstract" for him to make the argument to convince the DUmmies (so why try) who would rather forsake the truth for la la land.

If the Establishment from the left and the right, especially the leftists and socialists, lie about whatever is the truth from A to Z, it is no stretch for them to lie about natural born citizenship, which they do easily.

194 posted on 08/01/2012 11:19:31 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“If birth here was the sole criteria, none of these people would have ever been excluded from citizenship.”

You misread the post. I did not say, nor evern imply, birth was the sole criteria.

There is a material difference between children of diplomats, for example (who are not citizens, even now) and children of persons who have have consented to pay taxes and submit themsleves to the laws of the USA (such as resident aliens).

Children of legally resident aliens are natual born citizens.


195 posted on 08/01/2012 11:21:43 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Among your other faults, you are also, obviously, a hypocrite.

You bash me for calling radical birthers “crackpots” and then you call me an “idiot”???

You live in your own world, and you obviously have no clue about the real world.

196 posted on 08/01/2012 11:23:53 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: NOVACPA

Senate Resolutions serve a very useful purpose.

They state, clearly, for people like you, what informed people with POWER given to them by the Constitution and by the voters, THINK!

You are wrong.

The Senate told you that you were wrong, but you don’t care.


197 posted on 08/01/2012 11:26:14 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: NOVACPA

Senate Resolutions serve a very useful purpose.

They state, clearly, for people like you, what informed people with POWER given to them by the Constitution and by the voters, THINK!

You are wrong.

The Senate told you that you were wrong, but you don’t care.


198 posted on 08/01/2012 11:26:28 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; GregNH
Nowhere do your citations say who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

Disengious - your 'logic' is to conflate citizen into natural born citizen. No there there.

199 posted on 08/01/2012 11:28:08 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Not a single radical birther who claims that Rubio is not eligible seems to be able to debate, or understand common legal terms, or to understand history.

That doesn't stop you either, so I don't know why you would object to it in others. I guess hypocrite is no great leap from idiot.

200 posted on 08/01/2012 11:36:38 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-321 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson